NASA to Establish Permanent Moon Base

[halman]

brellis,<br /><br />Your report on the comments made by the scientist behind the development of the two Mars rovers points up an unfortunate consequence of the way that the U. S. has handled off planet exploration. Instead of assuming a leadership role, developing the new technologies needed, and then turning them over to the private sector, the government has severely underfunded NASA, to the point that developing the technologies has never been completed. Back in the late 1970's, it was widely assumed that the Space Transportation System would be in private hands by now, based on the belief that the government would completely fund the system. To work properly, the STS needed a minimum of 7 orbiters, so that launch rates would be high enough to support multiple operations off planet.<br /><br />However, Congress wasn't looking that far ahead, instead only seeing the shuttle as a scientific research tool, which therefore did not require a fleet of 7 orbiters. Nor did Congress see fit to fund the project that the shuttle was ideally suited for, building space stations. So, we ended up failing to transfer the technology to the private sector, because it was too expensive with only four orbiters to be run for profit, and we did not create a destination which would need frequent support missions.<br /><br />All of this has meant that the government has been the sole agency in off planet exploration, and that meager budgets for the work have had to be split between pure science, like the Mars rovers, and manned exploration, learning how to live and work off planet. If things had been done properly, the STS would be in private hands now, a permanent base on the Moon would be in transition to private hands, several private space stations would be beginning the third industrial revolution, creating products from resources mined on the Moon, and the government would be getting ready to launch a full-blown mission to Mars, with a large crew, reusable landing craft, and all t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

I always refer to the moons darkside as the farside to avoid the confusion in discussions with those who think the moon has a side in permanent darkness.<br /><br />A telescope on the moons farside would indeed benefit from being located away from earthshine as you mentioned. Not only that, imagine the deep fields that could be obtained with nearly two weeks of continuous exposure times. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[shadowsound]

Sounds like we need alternate sources of funding.<br />I'd go for a lottery that sells tickets to go to the ISS or a space hotel. A dollar a ticket. All extra goes to the building of a space infrastructure. <br /><br />It would have to be a world wide lottory .

 

[brellis]

halman,<br /><br />I'm ultimately in favor of more international and private cooperation in space exploration. If we can get China to stop building anti-satellite missiles, and turn that investment over to an expanded effort to build a Lunar Base, we'll be solving two really big problems at once!<br /><br />Something dawned on me (pun intended, after the fact!) as I was rereading your thoughtful post. The underlying problem of U.S. Government-funded Space Exploration <b><i>should</i></b> be convincing the public of its worth, but not on the playing field of MSM headline-grabbing sexiness. This recent article by Space.com writer Leonard David quotes scientists with vested interest in lunar exploration as saying we have to "Jazz It Up" in order to sell it to the public. That sounds suspiciously like "sex it up".<br /><br />Which is preferable for our democracy? A government that invests in projects for the longterm benefit of the country, and humanity in general, or one that competes for consumer attention with the likes of $300 Million Hollywood Action flicks? Which reminds me, the wall screens they're describing are sounding more and more like Total Recall <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />As an old-fashioned, 20th-Century sort of pro-democracy kinda guy, I favor policies that use terms like "investment", boring as that may sound. This is by no means to disagree with your assessment of U.S. mismanagement of space exploration in general. For example, much of the political capital available after the success of Apollo was squandered, though we did manage to enter into a partnership with the Soviet Union.<br /><br />From the US Archive on Space Cooperation:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In 1972, the United States and the Sovi</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kurtwagner]

McDonald's will have to go a LOT farther to assure everyone concerned that its bottom line is a healthy consumer rather than a profitable company. Some feel (http://www.mcspotlight.org/issues/intro.html) that McD's global-beef/corn-megazord stance is an intrinsic danger. At this point, the company has millions of addicts consuming its unhealthy burgers/fries/sodas in dangerously large quantities. Now, if Whole Foods were to bid on the food/bev contract for ISS, a lunar, deep space, or Mars expedition -- I think they could make a valid case!<br /><br />Kurt

 

[brellis]

hi kurt<br /><br />Thanks for reminding us that a giant lunar billboard beckoning ignorant consumers into space isn't something to be taken lightly - er, <i><b>Lite</b></i>ly.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">McD's global-beef/corn-megazord stance is an intrinsic danger. At this point, the company has millions of addicts consuming its unhealthy burgers/fries/sodas in dangerously large quantities. Now, if Whole Foods were to bid on the food/bev contract for ISS, a lunar, deep space, or Mars expedition -- I think they could make a valid case! </font><br /><br />Maybe they should start project <b>GREEN</b>. Everyone who buys a green mobile phone, or, in vogon's case, green covers for his nonhuman orifices, contributes to the WHOLE-some colonization of space.<br /><br />After the NYC Rats Invaded a KFC, it's gotta get more difficult for the <i><b>megazord</b></i> (I love that term) corporations to sustain public support. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

brellis makes an interesting point. The real science and exploration is being done by the unmanned probes (and Hubble), at a fraction the cost of manned missions. The neat stuff to learn is on Mars. With a tight budget I'd cut any manned program first, including VSE. (W had a vision about space exploration? Gimmie a break.)

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"The real science and exploration is being done by the unmanned probes (and Hubble), at a fraction the cost of manned missions."<br /><br />Well, there is no manned exploration program, so it's not surprising the unmanned probes are doing it all.<br /><br />As for science, it depends on the science. I don't know of any unmanned probes doing medical, biological or material science work, for instance.<br /><br />In any event, science is not the purpose of the manned space progam. That is initially exploration, but ultimately the incorporation of the solar system into man's domain.<br /><br />But as far as science goes, as Steve Squyres says, it's not a question of either/or but using them in complementary ways. Robots are great for the initial exploration of areas we cannot reach with humans, or for wide area sensing, but humans are better for in-depth, detail work. And their greater productivity outweighs the cost - but you have to be able to afford the cost to start with.

 

[kurtwagner]

I certainly agree that it's not an issue of whether unmanned is better or wiser than manned exploration. They both have their purposes. I was watching a Spirit/Opportunity show on TDC last night which said that we know far more about Mars than we ever did about the Moon prior to manned visits. The astounding level of detail that the MRO's HiRISE imager will provide (along with everything else thusfar obtained) will let us travel there well informed, prepared to do research, and focused in a way we barely let can conceive. <br /><br />To me it is a pretty worthless debate (manned vs robotic). When we're able to take ourselves out there, we'll go. For now - the pictures and data seem to be getting the job done well.<br /><br />Kurt

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I was watching a Spirit/Opportunity show on TDC last night which said that we know far more about Mars than we ever did about the Moon prior to manned visits."<br /><br />I might agree about more, but far more?<br /><br />I've recently been doing some digging on NASA's unmanned exploration and I was shocked by the huge number of probes that were sent to the moon prior to Apollo 11. Try 23! Not all of those succeeded but five successful soft landings and five successfull orbital observers in addition to flyby missions were made.<br /><br />"The astounding level of detail that the MRO's HiRISE imager will provide (along with everything else thusfar obtained) will let us travel there well informed, prepared to do research, and focused in a way we barely let can conceive."<br /><br />Except for one huge gap that still remains in our knowledge about Mars, details about the moons Phobos and Deimos. And detailed knowledge of those moons could radically alter and ease a manned mission to Mars. <br />